But is it true however? If yes, it would be very interesting to know who Assange's sources would have been amongst this lot as they would have had to be right at the top of the Government as well as Arab terrorist organizations. Can you imagine that anyone would be so dumb as to have a list somewhere with all these names on them?

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

Can you imagine that anyone would be so dumb as to have a list somewhere with all these names on them?

I've worked for the government.
Yes, yes I can imagine someone (or some group) that dumb.

(Really, though, there would almost have to be such a list. If a leader comes to you with a request: 'I need a friendly Arab in _____ location who might know about ______'... There's got to be somebody with a list who can go through the list and find a suitable one for you.)

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

(Really, though, there would almost have to be such a list. If a leader comes to you with a request: 'I need a friendly Arab in _____ location who might know about ______'... There's got to be somebody with a list who can go through the list and find a suitable one for you.)

I would have thought that that list would have been held in pieces, i.e. a few directors, instead of one person with one list. Also that it would be impossible to get hold of it at the level that confidential information like that would be held at. If Assange were to deal with people at the highest levels, then that would have to mean really big bucks, is Wikileaks really that well off? Sort of does not make sense to me. What does make sense would be e-mail correspondences, and I can't imagine that those kind of names would be attached to e-mails, and if they were, that all of it would be encrypted.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

If Assange were to deal with people at the highest levels, then that would have to mean really big bucks, is Wikileaks really that well off?

There are other ways of influencing people than bribing them.

To name a few:
-Insert a mole: take someone loyal to you, have him join the organization and gain their trust, no matter how long that takes.
-Blackmail
-Threats to family (similar to blackmail)
-Ideological conversion: convince someone in power that your cause is just, and convert them to it

And you don't even actually need to subvert any actual people. If you have some good hackers at your disposal, you can subvert their computers.
(Being encrypted makes things harder to hack, but doesn't make them impossible to hack.)
(Or, if you have some sneaky agents/spies, you can steal/photograph paper files, without ever corrupting a trusted person.)

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

deanhills wrote:

If Assange were to deal with people at the highest levels, then that would have to mean really big bucks, is Wikileaks really that well off?

There are other ways of influencing people than bribing them.

To name a few:
-Insert a mole: take someone loyal to you, have him join the organization and gain their trust, no matter how long that takes.
-Blackmail
-Threats to family (similar to blackmail)
-Ideological conversion: convince someone in power that your cause is just, and convert them to it

And you don't even actually need to subvert any actual people. If you have some good hackers at your disposal, you can subvert their computers.
(Being encrypted makes things harder to hack, but doesn't make them impossible to hack.)
(Or, if you have some sneaky agents/spies, you can steal/photograph paper files, without ever corrupting a trusted person.)

Surely you don't mean that Assange has been doing this? I can see him going for ideological conversion but at a low-key non-forceful level, but the other possibilities seem to be over the top a little?

hunnyhiteshseth

ocalhoun wrote:

deanhills wrote:

If Assange were to deal with people at the highest levels, then that would have to mean really big bucks, is Wikileaks really that well off?

There are other ways of influencing people than bribing them.

To name a few:
-Insert a mole: take someone loyal to you, have him join the organization and gain their trust, no matter how long that takes.
-Blackmail
-Threats to family (similar to blackmail)
-Ideological conversion: convince someone in power that your cause is just, and convert them to it

And you don't even actually need to subvert any actual people. If you have some good hackers at your disposal, you can subvert their computers.
(Being encrypted makes things harder to hack, but doesn't make them impossible to hack.)
(Or, if you have some sneaky agents/spies, you can steal/photograph paper files, without ever corrupting a trusted person.)

Or you can even have people who are unhappy/dissatisfied/disillusioned with the current system/government to leak these kind of information themselves as a way to get even, may be with some superior.

deanhills

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

Or you can even have people who are unhappy/dissatisfied/disillusioned with the current system/government to leak these kind of information themselves as a way to get even, may be with some superior.

I'm almost certain this has been mostly the case. An idealist in Government who has been disappointed by Government and who feels compelled to reveal all that is wrong to the general public.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:

Or you can even have people who are unhappy/dissatisfied/disillusioned with the current system/government to leak these kind of information themselves as a way to get even, may be with some superior.

I'm almost certain this has been mostly the case. An idealist in Government who has been disappointed by Government and who feels compelled to reveal all that is wrong to the general public.

Doesn't have to be that noble though.
More likely a case of: "The government screwed me, so now I'm going to screw the government."

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

Doesn't have to be that noble though.
More likely a case of: "The government screwed me, so now I'm going to screw the government."

OK. Like hell has no fury like an employee scorned? Positive side at least is that instead of shooting colleagues Wikileaks is affording him/her the opportunity of venting frustration.

handfleisch

Assange is a self-promoting, monomaniacal, dangerous jerk.

Bikerman

That may or may not be the case. I find his logic pretty sound though, in this case. He is trying to protect himself - after all he has just been imprisoned in the full glare of the world's media on charges that still strike me as extremely weak* - verging on unbelievable. If the UK and Sweden are prepared to lock him up and attempt to keep him locked-up, simply for a torn condom, then what would the US be prepared to do - his leaks haven't really harmed Sweden at all and have only been of relatively minor embarrassment to the UK...

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
(I have had a condom tear during sex myself and I wasn't aware of it until 'afterwards', so even if the story is true Assanges account seems to me to be credible, whereas the woman's story seems to be largely afterthought and rests on the fact that he should have known that the condom was torn and 'withdrawn'. She does not claim he forced her and she does not claim she said no - in fact rather the reverse. It is always dangerous to judge such things without all the available evidence, but I suspect here we actually probably HAVE all the relevant evidence and my own judgement is that the woman's story is not particularly credible, and even if true would not warrant a trial - let alone imprisonment on remand whilst waiting for a trial).

jmi256

Bikerman wrote:

That may or may not be the case. I find his logic pretty sound though, in this case. He is trying to protect himself - after all he has just been imprisoned in the full glare of the world's media on charges that still strike me as extremely weak* - verging on unbelievable. If the UK and Sweden are prepared to lock him up and attempt to keep him locked-up, simply for a torn condom, then what would the US be prepared to do - his leaks haven't really harmed Sweden at all and have only been of relatively minor embarrassment to the UK...

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
(I have had a condom tear during sex myself and I wasn't aware of it until 'afterwards', so even if the story is true Assanges account seems to me to be credible, whereas the woman's story seems to be largely afterthought and rests on the fact that he should have known that the condom was torn and 'withdrawn'. She does not claim he forced her and she does not claim she said no - in fact rather the reverse. It is always dangerous to judge such things without all the available evidence, but I suspect here we actually probably HAVE all the relevant evidence and my own judgement is that the woman's story is not particularly credible, and even if true would not warrant a trial - let alone imprisonment on remand whilst waiting for a trial).

I agree with both handfleisch (welcome back, btw) and Bikerman on this one, but probably to differing degrees. Is he strong personality with strong character traits? I would imagine so solely based on the fact that he has undertaken such an endeavor as wikileaks. But I don’t think the degree to which handfleisch describes him may necessarily be the case. I do agree with some that the release of the cables put some in harm, but the reason they have been put there is ultimately due to their own actions or the actions of their governments. In other words, a killer is a killer, whether he is caught/exposed or not. Assange simply exposed the actions already committed. While I personally probably wouldn’t have put out the cables that Assange put out, I would defend his right to do so simply because it is his right. Freedom of speech is only truly worthwhile when that speech is deemed as disturbing/shocking/unlikeable/(insert your own negative adjective here). If freedom of speech only applied to approved speech, what’s the point?

As far as the UK’s arrest of Assage, I do agree they did so with very, very slim evidence, and for an alleged infraction that seems petty/minor. Definitely not something to throw someone in jail over. I’m not sure why the UK government has taken that stance, though.

BTW, I do find it ironic that those all too eager to put wikileaks on a pedestal when there was a possibility that damaging info about Bush was possible are now adamantly opposed to wikileaks now that damaging information about their own “side” comes out. Ironic, but not shocking.

handfleisch

Bikerman wrote:

That may or may not be the case. I find his logic pretty sound though, in this case. He is trying to protect himself - after all he has just been imprisoned in the full glare of the world's media on charges that still strike me as extremely weak* - verging on unbelievable. If the UK and Sweden are prepared to lock him up and attempt to keep him locked-up, simply for a torn condom, then what would the US be prepared to do - his leaks haven't really harmed Sweden at all and have only been of relatively minor embarrassment to the UK...

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
(I have had a condom tear during sex myself and I wasn't aware of it until 'afterwards', so even if the story is true Assanges account seems to me to be credible, whereas the woman's story seems to be largely afterthought and rests on the fact that he should have known that the condom was torn and 'withdrawn'. She does not claim he forced her and she does not claim she said no - in fact rather the reverse. It is always dangerous to judge such things without all the available evidence, but I suspect here we actually probably HAVE all the relevant evidence and my own judgement is that the woman's story is not particularly credible, and even if true would not warrant a trial - let alone imprisonment on remand whilst waiting for a trial).

You are ignorant of the allegations of the rape case which involve more than a torn condom -- it also involves things like jumping on a sleeping woman and having sex with her before she's even awake.

While the timing of the charges may be questionable, so it casting Sweden as part of an international conspiracy to persecute Assange.

Bikerman

No, the full story is covered in the cited article I gave (the Guardian).
You are referring to a second set of allegations and they are not the subject of the charge which he was held on. The Guardian story is reliable - the reporter has seen the full charges listed by the Stockholm authority. The Guardian is also a liberal-left paper and would not make light of a genuine rape charge.

handfleisch

Bikerman wrote:

No, the full story is covered in the cited article I gave (the Guardian).
You are referring to a second set of allegations and they are not the subject of the charge which he was held on. The Guardian story is reliable - the reporter has seen the full charges listed by the Stockholm authority. The Guardian is also a liberal-left paper and would not make light of a genuine rape charge.

Isn't it still a fact that formal rape complaints of a nature much more serious than a broken condom have been filed against Assange? Why is he being held on some charges and not the others?

Bikerman

The first case went to the Stockholm prosecution office and they threw it out. There was then some shenanigans and those charges, along with the second lot that Woman W had by now made, were presented to a more provincial town prosecutor who decided to go to trial.

The whole thing is very smelly - and I hope you know me well enough to know I am not a conspiracy theorist and that I do try to do 'due diligence' with my sources. Neither am I normally prone to overstatement...
It might be that Woman W just smelled money - she certainly had a deal in place with a national paper before the charges were even formalised. As for the first woman and the torn condom charges - It is possible to assign some innocent reason for this arising, but it is stretching credibility quite far....

EDIT: Update - the US State Dept have now served a court order on the owners of Twitter demanding that details of WikiLeaks staff are given over to the government....

deanhills

Bikerman wrote:

It might be that Woman W just smelled money -

Could be a case of hell has no fury like a woman scorned, i.e. she could have been rejected by Assange or Assange could have made some remarks that really upset her to the extent that she wanted to even that score and "teach him a lesson". When she compared notes with her friend, they probably thought they had enough ammunition to do that. I may be wrong, but I just get the feeling that Assange does not have much respect for the ladies. Otherwise he would not have got into that situation in the first place. They would have been much more protective of him rather than going into the offensive with him.

Bikerman

Quote:

I may be wrong, but I just get the feeling that Assange does not have much respect for the ladies.

That may well be true and is not an unreasonable deduction from what I have seen. I have never really been particularly interested in his private life and character - outside the stuff relevant to his work. Most people have some flaws in their character and I would not expect Assange to be any different.
The fact remains, though, that given the allegations published in the Guardian, I am pretty confident in saying that they would not trigger the arrest and imprisonment of a 'normal' person in the UK (I can't speak for Sweden). It is therefore disturbing that not only was he arrested here (that is understandable, since there was a European warrant out for his arrest) but that he was going to be held in jail pending extradition - and when there was a possibility of bail the Swedish government appealed it. That is disturbing and speaks to me of political interference in the legal system.

deanhills

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

I may be wrong, but I just get the feeling that Assange does not have much respect for the ladies.

That may well be true and is not an unreasonable deduction from what I have seen. I have never really been particularly interested in his private life and character - outside the stuff relevant to his work. Most people have some flaws in their character and I would not expect Assange to be any different.

Good point. Except this got him into trouble, so possibly his personal behaviour has impacted his work to the extent that it has become of public interest. In my opinion it has been very detrimental to his work. There is obviously some obligation on his part to keep his personal life personal so that it won't impact his work, and it would appear that whereas he must be in top form with forethought when he is working on "leaks", he is not in top form in keeping his life personal. Bedding groupies, does not show much forethought.

Bikerman wrote:

The fact remains, though, that given the allegations published in the Guardian, I am pretty confident in saying that they would not trigger the arrest and imprisonment of a 'normal' person in the UK (I can't speak for Sweden). It is therefore disturbing that not only was he arrested here (that is understandable, since there was a European warrant out for his arrest) but that he was going to be held in jail pending extradition - and when there was a possibility of bail the Swedish government appealed it. That is disturbing and speaks to me of political interference in the legal system.

I don't see it as political. I'd rather see it as strictly legal. When one country has an extradition treaty with another country, and the other country wishes someone to be extradited for a crime like this one, then obviously regardless of who he is, he should be extradited. One could argue that because he happens to be a celebrity that people are hesitating to extradite him, people are even funding his legal bills to protest the extradition, whereas if it had been someone of lesser stature, who could not afford the legal bills, that person would already have been in Sweden a very long time ago. Bottomline, Assange should not be tried in the UK in the press, but in a court in Sweden where he can face his accusers fairly and squarely. This is not about Wikileaks, this is about his personal behaviour for which he has to take responsibility for.

If the charge had been about Wikileaks, then my opinion would be different, and I would see it purely as political and that it should be resisted in the strongest of terms. I'm almost certain that if the US would pressure Sweden to extradite Assange for charges with regard to Wikileaks, that Sweden would hesitate to do that. That after all is how Assange got involved with the two Swedish groupies in the first place. They had him completely up with the gods on a pedestal because of his success with Wikileaks and so must quite a large number of others in Sweden. He is admired for his work in Sweden as well.

Bikerman

So do you think that these allegations would have been enough for another person to be issued with an international warrant and arrested? I don't.
If it HAD been someone of lesser notoriety then I don't believe it would ever have arisen. The prosecutor in Sweden threw the allegations out. It was only when 'interested parties' decided to try another prosecutor that the thing became an issue at all. I think it is very much about wikileaks and very little to do with Assange's behaviour.

deanhills

Bikerman wrote:

So do you think that these allegations would have been enough for another person to be issued with an international warrant and arrested? I don't.
If it HAD been someone of lesser notoriety then I don't believe it would ever have arisen. The prosecutor in Sweden threw the allegations out. It was only when 'interested parties' decided to try another prosecutor that the thing became an issue at all. I think it is very much about wikileaks and very little to do with Assange's behaviour.

The Prosecutor did throw the charges out the first time round. So there must have been serious evidence that was put forward for the Prosecutor to have renewed the charges. As far as I know it is much more difficult to repeat the charges than to put them forward the first time round. One would really have to have your ducks in a row the second time round, especially after there had been such an international reaction after the first.

I don't agree with you with regard to it being another person. For example if it had been a Canadian who had done the same thing and there had been as strong a case as described above against the Canadian, then there would not have been a problem to extradite him. He may not have had enough clout to escape the first charges either.

Where it gets back to Wikileaks however is that the two women who got involved with him, got involved with him in his capacity as being from Wikileaks. They were completely blown away with his achievements with Wikileaks, in fact were the equivalent of groupies. Those women may not have put charges against him, if he had not been from Wikileaks. I don't know what goes on in their heads, but perhaps in their groupie minds they thought that he should be unmasked for his personal behaviour and that other women should be warned. They probably were completely disillusioned and enraged by his actions and thought that the world should know about it. Sort of a hero with clay feet that should be removed from his pedestal. As far as I can see they may have achieved just the opposite.

Bikerman

Quote:

The Prosecutor did throw the charges out the first time round. So there must have been serious evidence that was put forward for the Prosecutor to have renewed the charges.

The charges were put to the Chief Prosecutor's office in Stockholm in August. The duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for rape. The Chief prosecutor returned from holiday the next day, looked at the warrant and the charges, decided there was no case, withdrew the warrant and dropped the charges. Then, nearly two months later, the charges were revived and the warrant was issued. The only credible explanation is that he wasn't available in Sweden for further interview so they wanted him returned.

Quote:

As far as I know it is much more difficult to repeat the charges than to put them forward the first time round.

And what exactly is that based on? Do you know how the Swedish system works?

Quote:

I don't agree with you with regard to it being another person. For example if it had been a Canadian who had done the same thing and there had been as strong a case as described above against the Canadian, then there would not have been a problem to extradite him.

As strong a case? Have you read the article? There isn't ANY case, let alone a strong one. Neither woman alleges force and neither woman denies consenting to sex. Neither woman says that they told him to stop.
The sum total of the charge from the first woman (Woman A) is that

Quote:

The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

That is during consensual sex.
The second woman's charges can be summarised as:

Quote:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

Now, you can call him insensitive, even bullying, but there is nothing criminal there. Neither woman asked him to stop, neither woman was forced to have sex. The notion that Assange deliberately tore a condom during sex strikes me as rather fanciful - but even if true then it wouldn't constitute grounds for a rape charge.

EDIT: Update - the US State Dept have now served a court order on the owners of Twitter demanding that details of WikiLeaks staff are given over to the government....

Now that's an ugly sign.

And it shows that the government is taking much more action than just telling its employees "don't leak anything".

Bikerman wrote:

The notion that Assange deliberately tore a condom during sex strikes me as rather fanciful - but even if true then it wouldn't constitute grounds for a rape charge.

In a normal country, it wouldn't... But this is Sweden we're talking about.
From what I've heard of their rape laws, if the tear was deliberate, then it does count as rape.

As far as I'm concerned though, the whole:
"Sure you can have bail" *whispers with somebody in a black suit with sunglasses* "Oh, wait.... Uh... but only at $315000!" *whispers with the guy in sunglasses again* "What? People are putting up the money for his bail!?!" "Bail Denied!" thing settles it. I don't know if the rape charges are valid or not, but either way, he's being punished for the wikileaks, not the condom leaks.

Bikerman

Yep, that's my opinion as well. I'm not interested in defending him from charges of being an ****** - he might well be. Being an ass is not, last count, a serious criminal offence. I don't think the women are knowingly part of a conspiracy to punish or imprison Assange but I do think they have been and are being used without their direct knowledge to do just that. They have both signed deals with news media and were, according to the same Guardian report, discussing that possibility before they even filed charges. I think they are just greedy. Assange may be an idiot who doesn't like condoms, or he may like his sex rough, or he might just be a nasty thoughtless misogynist. It doesn't matter to me UNLESS he did something which is prosecutable. The Guardian report seems to me to make that extremely doubtful and the witnesses are not what I would call very credible - in fact it makes me quite angry. I'm well aware that women were raped with impunity for a long time because of the lop-sided legal system which made them fair-game for the defence lawyers if they were brave enough to go to court. Now we have what appears to be 2 women basically playing with a charge of rape for money. I wonder what women their mother's age would think about that.....?

deanhills

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

The Prosecutor did throw the charges out the first time round. So there must have been serious evidence that was put forward for the Prosecutor to have renewed the charges.

The charges were put to the Chief Prosecutor's office in Stockholm in August. The duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for rape. The Chief prosecutor returned from holiday the next day, looked at the warrant and the charges, decided there was no case, withdrew the warrant and dropped the charges. Then, nearly two months later, the charges were revived and the warrant was issued.

Is this not exactly what I said, except you expanded on the details? And then added your own "credible" explanation as much as I had mine?

As far as I know Assange was in Sweden at the time when the first charges were put. He then subsequently left the country. The second charges were put in his absence. When the first charges were put, people could not believe it, in absence of greater detail they immediately assumed the charges were politically motivated. I did as well at the time. But then when the charges were put the second time round, details were put forward that suggested that Assange was not as innocent as he had claimed to be. Remember, when the charges were put the first time round he completely denied it. Almost like none of it had happened. With the second charges we now know that something had happened. Except of course now the response is that these were all consensual and the charges politically motivated and ridiculous. If they are that ridiculous, why couldn't he have sorted this out in Sweden?

Possibly if he had not denied the first charges as loudly as he had, and tried to sort this out with the Swedish Prosecutor, it would have been thrown out as you thought it should have been. But if you and I had an argument where you put charges against me, and I then react that that was a lie, and that you were doing it for political reasons, then maybe it is not the two groupies only who want to teach him a lesson. The credibility of the Swedish legal system has to be defended as well.

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:

As far as I know it is much more difficult to repeat the charges than to put them forward the first time round.

And what exactly is that based on? Do you know how the Swedish system works?

Common sense. I believe the Prosecutor was embarrassed at the time when the charges were withdrawn the first time round, and then said that the matter would be further investigated. I would assume it quite elementary that the Prosecutor would make doubly sure that every little hole would have been covered when the second charges were put. I refuse to believe that the Swedish motivation for putting the charges would have been politically motivated. The accusations aren't political, they are based on facts. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the Swedish legal system is a joke.

Bikerman wrote:

As strong a case? Have you read the article? There isn't ANY case, let alone a strong one. Neither woman alleges force and neither woman denies consenting to sex. Neither woman says that they told him to stop.

If there had been no case, why were charges brought against him? So now the Guardian is the legal expert here? Assange is being heard in the media instead of a court of law? And the Swedish Prosecutor not given a chance to defend the charges.

Bikerman wrote:

The sum total of the charge from the first woman (Woman A) is that

Quote:

The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

That is during consensual sex.
The second woman's charges can be summarised as:

Quote:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

Now, you can call him insensitive, even bullying, but there is nothing criminal there. Neither woman asked him to stop, neither woman was forced to have sex. The notion that Assange deliberately tore a condom during sex strikes me as rather fanciful - but even if true then it wouldn't constitute grounds for a rape charge.

Shouldn't you wait until there is a proper court case where both sides get to put their facts forward before you judge the issue? If Assange were really that innocent, why couldn't he have sorted all of this out with the Prosecutor in Sweden?

Bikerman

Quote:

Is this not exactly what I said, except you expanded on the details?

No it isn't. You said that there must have been subsequent evidence for the prosecutor to have changed her mind. The women have not submitted any more evidence and the Swedish prosecutor only submitted the original claims made - so there isn't any 'new' evidence, just the same evidence that was judged insufficient a couple of months ago and now, strangely, IS sufficient.

Quote:

I refuse to believe that the Swedish motivation for putting the charges would have been politically motivated. The accusations aren't political, they are based on facts.

More supposition based on 'Common sense' ? What 'facts'? The Guardian reporter has the full documentation that was presented to the court and this is summarised in the article.

Quote:

Shouldn't you wait until there is a proper court case where both sides get to put their facts forward before you judge the issue?

No because the question is whether Assange should be extradited at all. I do not believe he should.

Quote:

If Assange were really that innocent, why couldn't he have sorted all of this out with the Prosecutor in Sweden?

Maybe he doesn't like her perfume? I don't know and I don't see how it is relevant. If the Swedes have a case then let them produce it in February at the extradition hearing.